Reikland Factory 4th Flag Feedback Thread.

[Vaul]

PvP is not mindless

[Flavorburst]

I wonder, does the people send letters to Alexey Pajitnov to make Tetris more like Mario Bros, or just play the Mario Bros when they want to play the Mario Bros instead of forcing the developer to make the Tetris more like Mario Bros when games like Mario Bros exist and they are more than welcome to play them?

This thread was opened for feedback. If it wasn't wanted, then it shouldn't have been requested. With that said, I enjoyed the three flag system better. It gave each team the opportunity to leave the wc and not be camped the entire scenario.

Well, great, but I was referring to people pushing the “please remove all objectives so I can mindlessly pvp” agenda with this post. SCs in WAR were always objective based.

I don't think anyone suggested removing all objectives from SCs. I think the general consensus was that sometimes too many objectives can lead to a poor experience (TV being cited as an example, since it is more lucrative to avoid fights at all costs and just cap flags).

In relation to RF: the 4th flag (and the re-positioning of the WCs as a result of the 4th flag) allows a team to easily funnel the WC and dominate the SC. I have done this numerous times since the change has gone live.

Previously, you were given a few options on where you can go from the WC (based on where the guards were positioned, etc). Now, you have a large area of the map that can be occupied by the enemy, cutting off all of those options from you.

Imagine if you removed the portals on the left/right in CoC and you basically get the same thing: Small map with limited options to "outplay" your opponent.

[flintboth]

thanks
After have play some more Reikland Factory scenario I post my last feedback.

There are no real big behaviors and habits today for the scenarios approach in generally.
For me, like all scenarios the outcome of the battle and the strategy approach depends the day, the hour you play it and who are joining them (solo, group, dudes, whiny posters...) and how they feel today.

But the mecanics drive and encourage some players to organize the event.

The new Battle Objective who is back today has (re)opened a secondary strategic path on the first battle front (who was the secondary battle front before the change).
Day after day the players try and find new strategies approaches in regard of this new path highlighted by the objective (if they dominate or if they are dominated or if there is an undeterminated battle).

Before the change the most active (most of the time) path was the one behind (the number 3 on the picture).
Today the most active path for me is the middle one to the middle Objective (to clarify, I mean is "the most used" during the scenario for me, I don't say is the "first" used at the scenario beginning).



The most strategic place (the most active too) was behind before the change, it was the first battle front and it was not a determinated spot like today, the effective area was around the both BO behind, between the both BO, including the paths to the warcamps, avoiding the entire middle zone (most of the time).
To win, the most players as possible was forced to move fast on a large perimeter (or "long way").
Today, for me, the most strategic place tends to be the middle BO.
The players who hold it well can send little forces to the BO they need back and can front the enemy forces coming from their respective respawn.



The new BO back in mecanics is "secondary" for me, it help dominated players to split the force who hold the middle BO.
It balance the scenario.



Now it seem (for the level 31-40 scenario) there are more style play possible for solo and duo because of the new objective who make the active area more large and more fun for those who like skirmish and little scale fights.
Today all secondary paths are used, tunnel way is more frequented, rail way is used but less than when it was only three flags (because in past it was the snipers and healers place between the two only IMPORTANTS Objectives, behind).
Group play is more on the two first flags because they can easily control the enemy forces, the both BO behind are most of the time for solo and duo play.
Today all BO are importants, in past there was only one strategic path used (or two) and only two BO played.

There are plenty sort of scenarios (flag after flag, one objective hold the place, three flags, two flags, run the bomb...) this one for me look more for all style play.
It is a Swiss cheese map like "2fort" in Team Fortress, four BO seems to bring back importance of all paths.


Click here to watch on YouTube


Click here to watch on YouTube

[Bozzax]

Isn’t the important q if 3 flag version is better?

Short answer not really bc parts of the map ”die”. The idea that more scs should be rigged for face of type matches is questionable. Players can already q a subset picking only the ones he / she likes most.

Sidenote, would be cool tho if scs lineup was linked to active map pairings. Example GoE, valley active when dwarf greenskin is pushed etc instead of random listing

[Nameless]

Before wc camping were Impossible cos of the guard hence u always had 2 paths to go out. Go middle bo or go around for back bos while 2-3 round ways were always possible to reach.

With this 4th bo near the wc enemy force could cut all of your ways to come out of wc and become boring wc campfest. This is the problem with that bo. Prolly that happens rarely at pug setting but when there is a premade or several duos the picture become ugly

[Hargrim]

Sidenote, would be cool tho if scs lineup was linked to active map pairings. Example GoE, valley active when dwarf greenskin is pushed etc instead of random listing

That's something we already think about.

[Zod24]

thanks
After have play some more Reikland Factory scenario I post my last feedback.

There are no real big behaviors and habits today for the scenarios approach in generally.
For me, like all scenarios the outcome of the battle and the strategy approach depends the day, the hour you play it and who are joining them (solo, group, dudes, whiny posters...) and how they feel today.

But the mecanics drive and encourage some players to organize the event.

The new Battle Objective who is back today has (re)opened a secondary strategic path on the first battle front (who was the secondary battle front before the change).
Day after day the players try and find new strategies approaches in regard of this new path highlighted by the objective (if they dominate or if they are dominated or if there is an undeterminated battle).

Before the change the most active (most of the time) path was the one behind (the number 3 on the picture).
Today the most active path for me is the middle one to the middle Objective (to clarify, I mean is "the most used" during the scenario for me, I don't say is the "first" used at the scenario beginning).



The most strategic place (the most active too) was behind before the change, it was the first battle front and it was not a determinated spot like today, the effective area was around the both BO behind, between the both BO, including the paths to the warcamps, avoiding the entire middle zone (most of the time).
To win, the most players as possible was forced to move fast on a large perimeter (or "long way").
Today, for me, the most strategic place tends to be the middle BO.
The players who hold it well can send little forces to the BO they need back and can front the enemy forces coming from their respective respawn.



The new BO back in mecanics is "secondary" for me, it help dominated players to split the force who hold the middle BO.
It balance the scenario.



Now it seem (for the level 31-40 scenario) there are more style play possible for solo and duo because of the new objective who make the active area more large and more fun for those who like skirmish and little scale fights.
Today all secondary paths are used, tunnel way is more frequented, rail way is used but less than when it was only three flags (because in past it was the snipers and healers place between the two only IMPORTANTS Objectives, behind).
Group play is more on the two first flags because they can easily control the enemy forces, the both BO behind are most of the time for solo and duo play.
Today all BO are importants, in past there was only one strategic path used (or two) and only two BO played.

There are plenty sort of scenarios (flag after flag, one objective hold the place, three flags, two flags, run the bomb...) this one for me look more for all style play.
It is a Swiss cheese map like "2fort" in Team Fortress, four BO seems to bring back importance of all paths.


Click here to watch on YouTube


Click here to watch on YouTube

My man just published a thesis on a flag

[Bozzax]

With this 4th bo near the wc enemy force could cut all of your ways to come out of wc and become boring wc campfest. This is the problem with that bo. Prolly that happens rarely at pug setting but when there is a premade or several duos the picture become ugly

Having played the map a few times, my experience was that turtletanking flags and avoiding fights entirely is now even more commonplace: with an extra flag to choose from, duos/solo could run around the map for the entirety of the game and secure two flag captures with good success, allowing their team to pick one or both of the other two while opposition attempts to retake.

Hmm? So both easier to play flags and spawn camp

[Sulorie]

4 flags are better, because the spawn guards are pulled back and open up 1/3 of the map for actual fights.

[Ketamine]

I wonder, does the people send letters to Alexey Pajitnov to make Tetris more like Mario Bros, or just play the Mario Bros when they want to play the Mario Bros instead of forcing the developer to make the Tetris more like Mario Bros when games like Mario Bros exist and they are more than welcome to play them?

This thread was opened for feedback. If it wasn't wanted, then it shouldn't have been requested. With that said, I enjoyed the three flag system better. It gave each team the opportunity to leave the wc and not be camped the entire scenario.

Well, great, but I was referring to people pushing the “please remove all objectives so I can mindlessly pvp” agenda with this post. SCs in WAR were always objective based.

Why are you a dev in a PvP game???
Why does everything get changed and balanced around mindless PvE/objective play?
Same thing really...